RE: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it is very good that Bill identified these loose ends and
encourage the ET to do whatever you can to assist the Council in making
final endorsements.  I promised I would let you guys do your work
without much involvement on my part so I won't comment on all the
details that Bill raises, but I do want to say a few things that
hopefully will be helpful to the ET.

I am not aware of the Council ever dealing with a situation like this so
I don't think there is any precedent that helps much. To my knowledge
there are no voting procedures currently in place to cover this.  All we
really have to go on is the default voting threshold, i.e., a simple
majority is required in each House.  In that regard, if we are unable to
achieve a simple majority support of each House for an endorsement for
either or both slots after reasonable effort, then we do not need to
endorse anyone for the slot(s).  Keep in mind that we said that we would
endorse up to six candidates so the flexibility is there to endorse less
than six.

Having said that, I hope that the ET in the limited time available is
able to suggest a procedure to maximize the chances of the Council
endorsing a candidate for each of the two slots.

Hope this helps.  Thanks again for your work on this.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:40 AM
> To: gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Adrian Kinderis
> Subject: [gnso-arr-dt] Voting, diversity, and allocation issues
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> To my regret, it occurs to me that there are some loose ends.
> 
> 1.  The DT alas has another task we've not addressed, namely 
> a proposal to the council on how the voting for RT slots 5 
> and 6 will be conducted.  All we've said is that a majority 
> of the two houses is needed.  So ok, the ET allocates to 5 
> and 6 the candidates that have not been claimed by a SG for 
> one of the four assigned slots, we have a list of let's say 6 
> people for the "open" slot and two for the "unaffiliated" 
> slot (or pick your numbers...but I think there'll be more of 
> the former than the latter), which it has ranked somehow and 
> maybe made a rec on, and then we vote.  And let's say that on 
> the first round no one person gets a majority of both houses 
> for one or both of these.  Then what?  We're on the call, the 
> clock's ticking, do we just say ok let's try that again and 
> hope that on the second round people shift from any 
> candidates that didn't get much support and clearly won't 
> make it to ones that did reasonably well and could get to 
> majority with a little added oomph?!
>    And if that doesn't work, do a third, fourth...?  I'm 
> imagining councilors on the call getting a little impatient 
> and grumpy...(If instead there's a tie, that's clearer, we 
> break on diversity and total votes).
> 
> Before we go about inventing the wheel, can some veterans 
> here say if/how the council has handled such things in the 
> past?  Is there a model to follow or adapt?
> 
> 2.  And of course the additional wrinkle is diversity.  Let's 
> say we go through the exercise, nobody's been willing to 
> change their votes much in a way that will produce a list of 
> up to six in which  no more than two nominees come from the 
> same geographical region and the nominees are not all of the 
> same gender and/or have a distribution between genders no 
> greater than two-thirds to one-third. We said the ET will 
> consult with the stakeholder groups and NomCom appointees to 
> review the candidate pool, present to the Council an 
> alternative mix that would meet the goals, and the Council 
> would vote on the new list.  This presumes a) the ET can work 
> out a list quickly that councilors will feel they can vote on 
> again without lengthy consults with their SGs and b) we can 
> quickly schedule another call to vote before the delivery 
> deadline of the 17th.  Should we cross this bridge if we come 
> to it, or think through how we'll deal with it?  Frankly, I 
> really hope that people will build !
>  in diversity at the front end enough that we don't have to 
> take these steps...with future RTs the time frame will be 
> more conducive, but this time...
> 
> 3.  Looking at the candidates so far an issue is raised by 
> Victoria's app.  I guess this is ultimately the ET's call but 
> the DT set the framework and the more voices the merrier from 
> a consensus standpoint, so I'll ask here and am copying 
> Adrian as well.  Victoria says, "Applicant was previously a 
> member of the NCUC and is currently a member of the IPC. 
> Applicant identifies with neither Constituency nor their 
> respective Stakeholder Groups. Applicant wishes to be 
> considered independent."  The DT didn't contemplate 
> situations in which someone simultaneously declares (both on 
> her app and on her personal website) but sort of denounces an 
> affiliation for the purpose of the election.  I don't know 
> her motives so won't address the particular case, but there's 
> a general matter of principle.  If an applicant is known (and 
> even declared) to be in a SG, they should be considered for 
> the "open" slot, not the "unaffiliated" slot, no?  That's 
> certainly how I understood the collective inte!
>  nt when we discussed the allocation procedure, but thought 
> maybe I should confirm now rather than having the ET try to 
> figure this out quickly on the 11th call.  Otherwise we could 
> have people trying to game things, e.g. figuring well getting 
> SG backing might be hard and there's less competition in the 
> unaffiliated slot so I'd like to stand there regardless of my 
> involvements.  To put the point in technicolor, say Marilyn 
> or Milton put their hats in the ring as unaffiliated; would 
> we just say ok, if that's what you want...?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
>